Jump to content

Talk:Dnipro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

This page contains links to promote a website https://www.virtualtourist.com/ 201.191.198.186 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No it does not. It contains citations, some of which are to that site.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the article name still Dnipropetrovsk???

The city has been offcically renamed, and the changes have already taken effect: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1375-19 (Ukrainian). I see the discussion on this page below, but I can't find any conclusions on the discussion. --Maximaximum (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion and the conclusions are exactly five sections above this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is an English language article on non Ukrainian website that uses new name Dnipro http://www.esctoday.com/136663/eurovision-2017-kyiv-set-host-contest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.19.78 (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Usage of Dnipro

Dear all,

Dnipro has been already mentioned in few news articles:

  1. http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/348766.html
  3. http://uatoday.tv/society/19-ukrainian-soldiers-injured-at-the-front-transported-to-dnipro-hospitals-671920.html

One can argue that it's Ukrainian media. However, I don't think that foreign media track changes of Ukrainian cities' names. 170.178.162.125 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)A

Dnepropetrovsk International Airport knows better :)-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And notice that Dnepropetrovsk International Airport has flights to "Kiev". There is no rush to change names. Wikipedia is not a current events blog. It is an encyclopedia that tracks human knowledge and allows users to find information about names and places that they might encounter in other reading. If their other reading is talking about Dnipropetrovsk, or even Dnepropetrovsk, then Wikipedia must make it easy for them to find that information. --Taivo (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That's not the case, as it should be renamed separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tudy sudy (talk • contribs) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Also here is an English language article on non Ukrainian website that uses the new name Dnipro

  1. http://www.esctoday.com/136663/eurovision-2017-kyiv-set-host-contest

Usage of new name takes off so it is now appropriate to change the name of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.197.104.119 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Usage may be "taking off", but it's still not common yet. There is no point to rushing into changing just because you've got ants in your pants. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Old or new name?

Guys here pointed out to the spelling as 'Dnipropetrovsk' rahter than 'Dnipro'. Why then article about renamed AFTER Dnipro, city, Horishny Plavny, are with new name, but Dnipro - with old one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horishni_Plavni I'm not even mentioned error in existing name of article - it always was DnEpropetrivsk, as pointed Toddy1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.127.46.4 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

'Dnipro' usage examples

I'd like to start the list of 'Dnipro' name usage examples and invite other users to add to the list. Tried to gather sources not from Ukraine, as someone wished (though plenty of web-cites in .ua domen [eg. IT companies with international connections] have influence on other www segments). I know, you can add more reliable sources. -- Ата (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Eurovision topic:

Time and date web-sites:

Economic news:

Ordinary usage by people:

-- Ата (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked at one of those websites - it got its content by copying from other websites, and then putting the words "read the full article on...".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This is by no means a compendium of current English usage. As Toddy points out, in many (most) cases you have listed, this is just cut and paste usage from a single source. You have to do more than just do a Google search and listing links. You have to actually read and evaluate each source. By requiring unique sources, your list of Eurovision articles is reduced to one as well as your list of economic articles. Indeed, in both of these cases even, the underlying source for the usage isn't actually an English source, but a Ukrainian one that the English source simply copies. --Taivo (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
May I suggest that if people are just copying text without changing the city name then they are ok with it? --Ата (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Some more:


The official Eurovision website uses Dnipro now too [1], and Interfax uses it as well [2] --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move yet. Perhaps let usage evolve and revisit the issue after a year? — JFG talk 06:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


– The city's name was changed, here's the proof [3]. So what else to discuss here? It's not an opinion war, it's a fact, the city has a new name. Orange-kun (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

We had a RM less than two months ago, nothing has changed since end of May, I do not see any point in opening a new one to be honest. Did you care to read it before posting here?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no evidence that "Dnipro" has supplanted "Dnipropetrovsk" (or even "Dnepropetrovsk") as the common name in English for this city. Yes, the Ukrainian name is now Дніпро, but that doesn't matter in the English Wikipedia. Only the most common usage in English counts in the English Wikipedia. We are not bound by acts of the Rada here. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    Could you please tell how many citations of RS (not the ones I listed above) would be enough? --Ата (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • How can you apply the rule of Common name to the recently renamed cities? This is senseless. So renaming is a fact now and I don't see any clear reason why to leave the old name.--Orange-kun (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Because this is not about what the cities are called within Ukraine, in Ukrainian. It's about what is most commonly used in the English language. You have to demonstrate that a majority of the reliable sources in English are now using "Dnipro" instead of "Dnipropetrovsk". A handful of mirrors of a single news report does not demonstrate "common English usage". You are itching to change things immediately. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Read the history of discussion at Kiev and Odessa for an example of how common English usage works. --Taivo (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
It's still not about "respectable journals", but about common English usage. The first of your two articles doesn't even count because it is an article about the name change itself. The second one does, indeed, use "Dnipro" in a context outside the name change. But it's just one source. "Common" isn't one source. There is no rush to change this article name. Just look at the discussions at Kiev adn Odessa. Wikipedia is bound by English common usage, not the current political whims of the Rada. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
And not a single one of the "Support" comments actually addresses Wikipedia policy or uses Wikipedia policy to justify a move. The policy is very, very clear at WP:COMMONNAME. And that policy supports a go-slow approach to renaming articles based on the shift in common English usage, not the whims of the Rada. --Taivo (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it has not "been wholly absorbed in English" (Ukrainian usage is utterly irrelevant.) You have no evidence of that. Even NickK's evidence is slim since the majority of his articles are in reference solely to Eurovision or were authored in Ukraine by Ukrainian news sources. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not quite WP:SNOWCLOSE as there is already a significant news coverage, particular related to the city's Eurovision bid: Google News and many other matters not related to the name change, such as economy or politics. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should give additional weight to these sources. Instead, the point of this discussion becomes pretty much WP:CRYSTALBALL: it seems to be clear that Dnipro will end up being used as a name in most English-language sources some time after the rename (this happened in all previous Ukrainian renames, including large cities such as Mariupol/Zhdanov and Luhansk/Voroshylovgrad), but we still do not rename as in theory it might happen that this name will end up not being used. The only question is what extra weight we are adding to these recent sources and how much time we should wait until we get a critical mass of them — NickK (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the meaning of WP:CRYSTALBALL as it relates to this discussion. It is not relevant to those of us saying, "We don't know yet whether Dnipro will become the primary form in English or not" and your attempt to make it relevant is ridiculous. What we are saying is that there is not yet sufficient proof that it has taken root as the most common English form. Crystalball actually applies to the proponents of the move because they are hoping that it becomes the most common term. You cannot twist Crystalball to make it apply to the opponents of this change. --Taivo (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And almost all of your "English" new sources have their origin in Ukraine--the Ukrainian list of Eurovision candidates and Kyiv Post articles. You're going to have to show American and British news stories and other sources that are demonstrating the new usage. There is no rush here. There is no deadline beyond which Dnipro turns into a pumpkin if Wikipedia hasn't acted. Kyiv is still at Kiev and Odesa is still at Odessa. I don't think either city has suffered any adverse effects for it. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that American or British sources do not cover cities like this daily. Moreover, they don't even cover them weekly. Kyiv/Kiev and Odesa/Odessa cases are not relevant here as these cities were not officially renamed, only romanisation changed, thus they are more like a Nanjing/Nanking case. Here we have a name change and three main associated issues:
  • How can we measure common English usage here? The city gets significant and not Ukraine-originated coverage in English-language sources once in a few years when something important happens there. One such event happened last year (local team making it to the UEFA Europa League final), another one is happening now (Eurovision bid). There is little interest to this city beyond that: it gets occasional coverage on travel websites or in random (mostly Ukrainian) news, it often appears in databases but nothing more that would attract British or American attention: the city is not known to a casual British or American reader, like, say Moscow or Rome are.
  • How can we find the moment when this usage changes? In other words, from which date can we consider that English usage became Dnipro and not Dnipropetrovsk? I would be very interested in looking into this on similar examples of other large Ukrainian cities: for instance, when did common English usage switch from Zhdanov to Mariupol?
  • Deadline. People use Wikipedia to get an up-to-date information (which is our advantage over paper encyclopaedias). When Mount McKinley was renamed Denali, it took just an hour to change the name and people started getting up-to-date information immediately. In this case people keep seeing an outdated name because we assume that the new name will not be used that much. We already see that post-rename sources do use Dnipro, but this seems to be not enough. The current state basically puzzles the reader: it is not clear from the article what is the current name, in particular infobox mentions Dnipropetrovsk and Dnepropetrovsk without any mention of Dnipro, so do navboxes below. If we do not follow this rename, at least we should rewrite it similarly to, say, Pondicherry which has double name both in the infobox and in navboxes. Thus there is a deadline, a deadline of keeping Wikipedia as a source of up-to-date information — NickK (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You are rather mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not intended to be "up-to-date" in the sense of "right now". We are not intended to drive usage, but to reflect usage. We are not a style guide, but a reference. We are not prescriptive, but descriptive. There is no "deadline", that is your misperception of our function, otherwise we would be using "Kyiv" and "Odesa" since that's what Ukraine would like everyone to use in English. But English usage changes slowly sometimes, despite the desires of Ukrainian nationalists and people who lack patience. Yes, Wikipedia moves glacially on occasion. There is no fault in that. Perhaps with the end of Eurovision, it will be clear that English usage has unequivocally changed. I do not have a crystal ball in that regard. And I caution you against WP:OTHERSTUFF. We can both find hundreds of examples of other places in Wikipedia to support our argument. Dnipro/Dnipropetrovsk isn't Denali/McKinley. Dnipro isn't Kyiv/Kiev. It has its own history and its own future. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
We can argue about spelling isses like Kiev/Kyiv or Pondicherry/Puducherry, but at least in those cases we have an excellent supply of English-language sources: numerous international delegations from English-speaking countries visit Kiev/Kyiv or meet representatives of Kiev/Kyiv, and there are many English-language media covering events in Pondicherry/Puducherry, thus we can measure almost in real time how they call those cities. What is even more important, we have sources that know about the change but still ignore it. This city has no continuous coverage in English, we are supposed to give extra weight to recent sources, but what is the formula? I think we both agree that we observe a trend of switching from Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipro, but we fail to agree at which point of this trend we should change the name and how to detect this point.
In the meantime, why at least can't we use double names like Dnipropetrovsk (Dnipro) or Dnipro (Dnipropetrovsk) in the infobox and navboxes and clearly state in the article that there was a change but it is not common yet? This would at least clarify the situation to the readers — NickK (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent suggestion and I edited "Dnipro" into the infobox. It's already mentioned in the first sentence. I suspect that the coverage Dnipro gets during Euromaidan will make it quite clear how common English usage falls out--whether Dnipropetrovsk stubbornly hangs on or Dnipro supplants it. And there is no well-defined demarcation as to when we judge common English usage to have shifted. It's based on consensus among the editors. Right now, there is no consensus to change, so the status quo prevails. --Taivo (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - get with the times, it's 2016. (real reasons have already been stated here, it's the name, its used in engish). Also if we're talking about crystal ball predictions, it seems to be one to assume common use of 'Dnipropetrovsk' will continue despite it falling out of style already --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It has not "fallen out of style already". That is simply your wishful thinking. And the date matters not to Wikipedia. Only common English usage, which no one has convincingly demonstrated as of yet. No one is hoping that the city's name doesn't change in English. But the change in English must have already happened before the article should be moved. That's what none of you get and why the only argument the proponents of the move have is WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
So let's look at what American and British sites are actually using right now. I've tried to get websites that are most likely to change quickly--tourist and travel sites with .com extensions:
No one is saying that the change isn't beginning, but it's only in the early stages and the most common usage is still "Dnipropetrovsk". --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PS Huffington Post has used the new name. So this American news story is demonstrating the new usage. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

So what! And a site linked to by the story is webinerds.com/company/, which spells it "Dnipropetrovsk".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is NOT a personal attack as claimed. It is the URL of a company - I got the link to the company from the article referenced by Yulia Romero above, and wondered how the company spelled the city's name. For some reason, Wikipedia blocks posting the URL with http: in front of it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Weather "data"

Comparison of old and new versions of the Weather box

Old version

Climate data for Dnipropetrovsk
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C 12.3 17.5 24.1 31.8 36.1 37.8 39.8 40.9 36.5 32.6 20.6 16.3 40.9
Mean daily maximum °C −1.0 0.0 6.0 15.2 22.1 25.6 28.0 27.4 21.5 13.8 5.2 0.2 13.7
Daily mean °C −3.7 −3.4 1.8 9.6 16.1 19.8 22.1 21.4 15.5 8.9 2.0 −2.3 9.0
Mean daily minimum °C −6.1 −6.3 −1.6 4.9 10.6 14.6 16.7 15.8 10.7 5.0 −0.5 −4.7 4.9
Record low °C −30.0 −27.8 −19.2 −8.2 −2.4 3.9 5.9 3.9 −3.0 −8.0 −17.9 −27.8 −30.0
Average precipitation mm 45 43 43 38 42 60 54 43 41 37 46 47 539
Record high °F 54.1 63.5 75.4 89.2 97.0 100.0 103.6 105.6 97.7 90.7 69.1 61.3 105.6
Mean daily maximum °F 30.2 32.0 42.8 59.4 71.8 78.1 82.4 81.3 70.7 56.8 41.4 32.4 56.7
Daily mean °F 25.3 25.9 35.2 49.3 61.0 67.6 71.8 70.5 59.9 48.0 35.6 27.9 48.2
Mean daily minimum °F 21.0 20.7 29.1 40.8 51.1 58.3 62.1 60.4 51.3 41.0 31.1 23.5 40.8
Record low °F −22.0 −18.0 −2.6 17.2 27.7 39.0 42.6 39.0 26.6 17.6 −0.2 −18.0 −22.0
Average precipitation inches 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.9 21.2
Average rainy days 9 8 10 13 13 13 12 9 10 10 12 11 130
Average snowy days 16 15 9 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 1 6 15 63
Average relative humidity (%) 88 85 79 67 62 66 65 62 70 77 87 88 75
Source: Pogoda.ru.net[1]

New version

Climate data for Dnipropetrovsk, 1981–2010 normals, extremes 1955–present
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C 12.3 17.5 24.1 31.8 36.1 37.8 39.8 40.9 36.5 32.6 20.6 16.3 40.9
Mean daily maximum °C −1.0 0.6 7.8 16.9 25.4 27.8 30.1 29.9 23.3 14.4 7.3 0.6 15.3
Daily mean °C −2.9 −2.5 3.4 11.4 19.2 21.9 23.7 23.4 17.5 10.0 4.4 −1.5 10.6
Mean daily minimum °C −4.9 −5.7 −1.0 5.8 13.1 15.9 17.4 16.9 11.8 4.7 1.6 −3.6 6.0
Record low °C −30.0 −27.8 −19.2 −8.2 −2.4 3.9 5.9 3.9 −3.0 −8.0 −17.9 −27.8 −30.0
Average precipitation mm 76 56 52 46 34 30 26 22 25 28 72 102 569
Record high °F 54.1 63.5 75.4 89.2 97.0 100.0 103.6 105.6 97.7 90.7 69.1 61.3 105.6
Mean daily maximum °F 30.2 33.1 46.0 62.4 77.7 82.0 86.2 85.8 73.9 57.9 45.1 33.1 59.5
Daily mean °F 26.8 27.5 38.1 52.5 66.6 71.4 74.7 74.1 63.5 50.0 39.9 29.3 51.1
Mean daily minimum °F 23.2 21.7 30.2 42.4 55.6 60.6 63.3 62.4 53.2 40.5 34.9 25.5 42.8
Record low °F −22.0 −18.0 −2.6 17.2 27.7 39.0 42.6 39.0 26.6 17.6 −0.2 −18.0 −22.0
Average precipitation inches 3.0 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 2.8 4.0 22.4
Average rainy days 13 12 12 11 9 6 5 4 5 8 12 13 110
Average snowy days 11 10 6 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 4 9 41
Average relative humidity (%) 88 85 79 67 62 66 65 62 70 77 87 88 75
Mean monthly sunshine hours 185 207 269 309 325 311 313 287 271 247 173 160 3,057
Source 1: Meteoprog.ua[2]
Source 2: «Guide to Climate of the USSR».[3]
  1. ^ "Pogoda.ru.net" (in Russian). May 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
  2. ^ "Meteoprog.ua" (in Ukrainian). June 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2016.
  3. ^ (Справочник по климату СССР. Выпуск 10. Украинская ССР. Часть 1. Солнечная радиация, радиационный баланс и солнечное сияние. Л.: Гидрометиздат. 1966. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)).

The old version has a verifiable source.

The new version has two alleged sources:

  • "Meteoprog.ua" (in Ukrainian). June 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2016.
  • «Guide to Climate of the USSR».Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

}}

Weather box based on model-generated data

Climate data for Dnipropetrovsk, (1996–2015 normals,[a] extremes 1879–present)[b]
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C (°F) 12.3
(54.1) 		17.5
(63.5) 		24.1
(75.4) 		31.8
(89.2) 		36.1
(97.0) 		37.8
(100.0) 		39.8
(103.6) 		40.9
(105.6) 		36.5
(97.7) 		32.6
(90.7) 		20.6
(69.1) 		16.3
(61.3) 		40.9
(105.6)
Mean maximum °C (°F) 10.6
(51.0) 		14.5
(58.1) 		21.2
(70.2) 		26.7
(80.1) 		31.6
(88.8) 		36.5
(97.7) 		38.6
(101.5) 		37.4
(99.4) 		34.3
(93.7) 		27.8
(82.0) 		19.4
(67.0) 		12.2
(54.0) 		39.0
(102.2)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 2.2
(36.0) 		4.2
(39.6) 		12.1
(53.8) 		16.4
(61.5) 		22.2
(72.0) 		28.3
(82.9) 		32.5
(90.5) 		30.8
(87.4) 		26.2
(79.2) 		18.2
(64.8) 		9.7
(49.5) 		3.2
(37.8) 		17.2
(63.0)
Daily mean °C (°F) −1.8
(28.8) 		−0.6
(30.9) 		5.6
(42.1) 		10.7
(51.3) 		15.5
(59.9) 		21.0
(69.8) 		25.1
(77.2) 		24.1
(75.4) 		19.0
(66.2) 		11.7
(53.1) 		5.2
(41.4) 		−0.5
(31.1) 		11.4
(52.5)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) −5.8
(21.6) 		−5.3
(22.5) 		0.7
(33.3) 		5.0
(41.0) 		8.8
(47.8) 		13.6
(56.5) 		17.6
(63.7) 		17.4
(63.3) 		11.7
(53.1) 		5.2
(41.4) 		0.8
(33.4) 		−3.8
(25.2) 		5.5
(41.9)
Mean minimum °C (°F) −14.1
(6.6) 		−12.6
(9.4) 		−6.1
(21.0) 		−1.8
(28.8) 		1.4
(34.5) 		6.3
(43.3) 		12.8
(55.1) 		11.2
(52.2) 		4.4
(39.9) 		−1.2
(29.9) 		−8.6
(16.6) 		−13.5
(7.7) 		−17.2
(1.0)
Record low °C (°F) −30.0
(−22.0) 		−27.8
(−18.0) 		−19.2
(−2.6) 		−8.2
(17.2) 		−2.4
(27.7) 		3.9
(39.0) 		5.9
(42.6) 		3.9
(39.0) 		−3.0
(26.6) 		−8.0
(17.6) 		−17.9
(−0.2) 		−27.8
(−18.0) 		−30.0
(−22.0)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 45
(1.8) 		43
(1.7) 		43
(1.7) 		38
(1.5) 		42
(1.7) 		60
(2.4) 		54
(2.1) 		43
(1.7) 		41
(1.6) 		37
(1.5) 		46
(1.8) 		47
(1.9) 		539
(21.2)
Average snowfall cm (inches) 9.4
(3.7) 		6.6
(2.6) 		2.3
(0.9) 		0.5
(0.2) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.3
(0.1) 		3.3
(1.3) 		9.4
(3.7) 		31.5
(12.4)
Average precipitation days 10.2 9.5 9.9 9.5 9.0 5.6 4.5 5.6 5.8 7.1 9.1 10.1 95.9
Average snowy days 6.2 4.8 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 4.5 21.3
Average relative humidity (%) 83.3 76.8 71.6 64.5 58.9 55.0 53.2 55.7 57.0 63.1 75.6 82.9 66.5
Mean monthly sunshine hours 127.1 162.4 241.8 270.0 322.4 360.0 381.3 353.4 300.0 248.0 150.0 111.6 3,028
Percent possible sunshine 42 55 67 67 72 81 83 82 81 72 50 38 68
Source 1: Meteoblue Weather[1]
Source 2: weather2travel.com (sun only)[2]
  1. ^ "Climate Dnipro - MOWD". Meteoblue Weather. Retrieved May 11, 2017.
  2. ^ "DnepropetrovskClimate Guide". weather2travel.com. Retrieved May 11, 2017.

Discussion

In stating that he/she preferred the model-generated data from www.meteoblue.com, Paulandys stated that:

  • [15] Your inf. is too old.
  • [16] Modeling or not, this is not so important as that in the summer of the last 20 years 30+ temperatures and the fact that it is better to have at least some data on solar indicators than not to have at all, and count more data for a period o...
  • [17] Your data is a description of the last century, it's not true, my data is closer to reality. Calculate the time periods of temperature for a period of 20 or 30 years, I did it, so do you, and if you do not want, then treat at least with resp

The www.meteoblue.com states that its data "are based on 30 years of hourly weather model simulations" and that the "data is derived from our global NEMS weather model at approximately 30km resolution and cannot reproduce detail local weather effects, such as heat islands, cold air flows, thunderstorms or tornadoes." The data are a "simulated climate data-set".

The other source Paulandys favours is http://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/ukraine/dnepropetrovsk.php#other weather2travel.com], though only for sun data.

It seems much better to use real data from a reliable source that uses measurements of the weather, such as Pogoda.ru.net. Paulandys says that the data in that source are too old - yet the page for Dnepropetrovsk contains data on extremes that gives the year, and many of these years are in the past 15 years. The data from pogodaiklimat.ru in the above weather box was last updated in August 2016; if you compare this with the source, you can see that the weather box needs updating again, because measurements over the past 9 months have resulted in changes to averages on the pogodaiklimat.ru page. Clearly the allegation that pogodaiklimat.ru is too old is not true.

The number of "average snowy days" is very different between the real data from pogodaiklimat.ru and the simulated data from www.meteoblue.com. Though it depends on what you mean by a snowy day:

  • meteoblue.com 23 days per year. This uses the meaning: days on which there was precipitation in the form of snow.
  • pogodaiklimat.ru 64 days per year. Same definition.
  • pogodaiklimat.ru 72 days with snow cover per year. Days on which there was snow on the ground.

Another interesting comparison is to look at temperature for particular month - I chose January. This is something that all three websites provide data for. To my surprise, the weather box supposedly based on meteoblue.com has different values than that shown on the meteoblue.com website.

  • Average daily maximum temperature (January)
    • Weather box based on meteoblue.com +2.2°C
    • meteoblue.com 0°C
    • weather2travel.com -2°C
    • pogodaiklimat.ru -1.0°C
  • Average daily minimum temperature (January)
    • Weather box based on meteoblue.com -5.8°C
    • meteoblue.com -5°C
    • weather2travel.com -8°C
    • pogodaiklimat.ru -6.1°C

I believe that we should use the pogodaiklimat.ru data.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is another website weatheronline.co.uk. It allows us to see which data we want to use. I have therefore looked at three time periods: 1982-now. Jan 2000 to Dec 2016, and Jan 2016 to Dec 2016:

  • Days with snow:
    • 90.0 days (1982-2017)
    • 99.2 days (2000-2016)
    • 96 days (2016 only)
  • Average daily maximum temperature (January):
    • -1.5°C (1982-2017)
    • -1.4°C (2000-2016)
    • -2.9°C (2016 only)
  • Average daily minimum temperature (January):
    • -5.8°C (1982-2017)
    • -5.8°C (2000-2016)
    • -8.8°C (2016 only)

I assume that this is real data, and not synthetic data like meteoblue.com.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that mean maximums and mean minimums are not shown in the meteoblue website. The sunshine data entered in the weatherbox does not match from the weather2travel.com source (both monthly and daily values are shown).
  • Mean sunshine hour (January)
    • Weather box based on weather2travel.com 127.1 (4.1 hr/day)
    • weather2travel.com 61 (2 hr/day)
  • Mean sunshine hour (July)
    • Weather box based on weather2travel.com 381.3 (12.3 hr/day)
    • weather2travel.com 310 (10 hr/day)

It would mean the entire data is unsourced and this is not acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:Verifiability. I will still stick with the pogodaiklimat.ru data. There is no point in inserting made up data not backed up by any of the sources used. As for the claim that the data is closer to reality, that is based on one's opinion. Anyone can claim that the city has temperatures close to x degrees in the last x years. To verify that requires observed data since it is neutral and more accurate. Lastly, the claim that it is better to have at least some data on solar indicators than not to have at all is not the best. Unreliable sources such as weather2travel.com have no fact checking to indicate if the data is reliable or not. They are only using it for marketing purposes. It is bad to insert unreliable weather data and misinforming readers about the climate of the city. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Imagery

Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Paulandys may be of interest.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What is needed for the move to happen?

I hope everyone realizes that in the end the article will be moved (unless the city is renamed back but that is not the thing I am about to talk).
Could anyone please tell the conditions? How many citations of reliable sources will be enough? So that one day I could come back to this talk page, put a list of references and request the move that will be proceeded smoothly. Please take me seriously. --Ата (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Read Talk:Dnipropetrovsk#Requested move 17 July 2016. It says "let usage evolve and revisit the issue after a year". So why not propose the move for the third time on 3rd August 2017. And yes, I firmly expect that one day the article will be moved... to Dnepropetrovsk -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
And it also has a question mark after this sentence. Year is a very long period of time. --Ата (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I think third request for move can be opened without waiting for a year. As for now, there are a lot of evidence for a new name usage. Everything, related to Eurovision uses it - [18], [19]. Also, the following references show widespread usage of a new name in English: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Actually, my personal opinion that the Rada's decision is quite enough to change the name of an article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The Rada's decision is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the English language Wikipedia. You clearly have no understanding of WP:COMMONNAME. This isn't the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Three requests in three months is a waste of Wikipedia time. Why don't you actually do something productive? Waiting a year is nothing in Wikipedia. Instead of predicting that a change may happen, just act like an adult and wait for it to happen. --Taivo (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Let say that you should learn a rules of polite discussion. This essay may help you with this. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, there are examples of name changes that were made quite quickly. For exaxmple Bakhmut, Kamianske, Chornomorsk changed the names in 2016 and almost immediately articles were renamed. An older change - Staines-upon-Thames was renamed from Staines and renamed here almost instantly. I assume it's quite a logical approach, when a sovereign changes the name of something on it's territory and the news sources start using that name, gradually increasing the amount of reliable sources we can use here. No one can say that Eurovision related sources are not reliable. And I don't see any WP:CRYSTALBALL here. And one more fact - the article is renamed not only in Ukrainian wikipedia. The new name is in German, Russian ( !!! ), Hebrew, French and many others. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
And perhaps rather than wasting Wikipedia time once a month with another move request, you find more constructive things to do that actually improve the encyclopedia rather than pushing the Rada's bidding. And it doesn't matter one whit what the other Wikipedias do. All that matters is English common name. Period. No one said that Eurovision reporting wasn't reliable. But that is not the sum of English common usage. And none of the other examples you cited were major cities. Kiev and Odessa are still not at Ukrainian language locations because of English common usage. Dnipro is not a hole-in-the-wall. It is a major city and its name occurs in English language sources. Are you so impatient that you have to move as fast as possible after the Rada dictates? Waiting for a time is appropriate to see where English common usage moves with respect to the name of this city. Two months is not an eternity. One year is not an eternity. After a year, English common usage will be crystal clear. You don't win points for moving this article as fast as possible. --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, the change is not using Ukrainian name vs. not Ukrainian, but a complete change of the name. In case of change from Dnipropetrovsk to something like Dnypropetrovsk, I would agree with you. Kiev and Odessa are the way city names pronounced in English. But, anyway, at this point I can do only one productive thing here, which is excuse myself from discussing things with you, since you clearly don't understand a polite way of having a discussion. Wasting time is the continuation of talking to you. I will allow to myself to disagree with your point of view and end my interaction at this point. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks like that despite consensus to move, it'll keep being held up in wiki-bureaucracy because it's not unanimous, held up by the old timers fighting the reality of the name change and it's clear use in English media since. Also I think Taivo is being a little disingenuous here, I looked at his "list" of Dnipropetrovsk used in current sources and they were all travel sites that just hadn't been updated yet - one page was from 2011. This is just shady sourcing to pad numbers. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to study WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not a majority vote. It is agreement and there is no agreement here. It doesn't matter whether the "old timers" disagree or not. There is no consensus that English common usage has changed. Surely there is some evidence that it is beginning to change, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the change is not particularly widespread at this time. Eliminate the publicity about Eurovision and there is very, very little evidence of the change yet. So just learn the meaning of the word "patience". We will revisit the issue in the near future (not next month, but several months from now). By then the situation in English usage may be clearer, but for now there is enough doubt to not bow to the will of the Rada just because they say so. --Taivo (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Double standards Mr Toivo (Dnipropetrovsk — Kamianske). --ValeriySh (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Spelling lessons, Mr. ValeriySh. And it's not a "double standard". It's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kamianske is a location that doesn't have a common English name because it is never mentioned in English outside Wikipedia. Dnipro is not in that category. It is a major city and occurs in English media outside Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That is not strictly true, Dneprodzerzhinsk is mentioned in biographies of (1) Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and (2) Vera Brezhneva because they were born there. However, Kamianske is the historic name - when Brezhnev was born, the city was not Dneprodzerzhinsk.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Meanwhile nothing to do then to wait

I'm actually hoping that the city will host the Eurovision Song Contest 2017 and then in English media will massively be referred to as "Dnipro". If such a thing would happen then waiting another year to rename this article will be rather silly.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment. This whole discussion is, pardon me for such word, stupid and as ValeriySh said has double standards all over it. The article was not moved due to the fact that some members of Wikipedia do not want to face the reality. They live in their own "Wikipedia World" coming up with weird rules about what is mentioned and not as well as counting Google hits instead of expressing the truth. Same type of editors came out back in 2014 editing bunch of self-invented articles about various separatist states and political parties. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a terrible place to be a truther. I am sorry that you do not like the "weird rules", that require a neutral point of view, verifiability and no cherry-picking of sources. It is imperfect and frustrating.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Toddy1, you need to keep your unnecessary empathy to yourself. What you just called weird rules, I have no problem and the cherry-picking is what you do. Let's be truthful to each other. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Did the majority of votes on the issue called for move or not? So, what are we still discussing here? It only will cause more conflicts on Wikipedia. Is that your goal? Is that the Wikipedia's goal? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Was the issue connected to a systematic changes that were taking place in Ukraine as part of decommunization? Yes, it was. The statement that the name change took place only in Ukrainian language is wrong. The name was changed regardless of language. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
For the changes to the city's name voted the Dnipro city's council, majority of which is composed of Russophone and pro-Russian citizens of Dnipro city. Even the city's portal says Welcome to Dnipro City! Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Dnipro is the city's name on Google Maps. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Will you be proposing that the article on Kamianske be renamed Dniprodzerzhyns'k on the basis that that is the name used by Google Maps?-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


@Aim4accuracy: What is needed? I will repeat what I wrote in different section which is now closed: Look how city itself presents in English language - official city pages, airport, football club, brochures... oblast name... Why is name of football club still with "old" name which carries most of city references!!! It would help a LOT if city itself presented consistently, now it is a mess (something renamed, most same as before). Ask them, not Wikipedia, to change first. Write e-mail and persuade airport, metro, landmarks, etc... to loudly promote Dnipro, Dnieper or whatever they want to be called in English. So let them show us that it is meant seriously and new name is visible where it should be visible IN THE CITY ITSELF. Now it is not. They renamed it on paper (in law) but "city sign" on the road remained the same (well maybe not city sign, but we found lots of examples). No propaganda reasons involved, only sloppiness of execution in the city itself. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This POV push on this talk page is too obvious. First, airport name is Dnepropetrovsk airport. The airport doesnt automatically follow the name of the city it is based in, it has its own name that hasnt been changed. Vienna International Airport is based in town of Schwechat, not Vienna but we are not renaming Schwechat into Vienna because of that. Second, we are not discussing airport here, we are discussing city here. Fourth, you cannot throw around all the time arguments that what matters is common name and then argue with official names that you dismissed in the same post. Its hypocritical.
Football club name is FC Dnipro, name of metro is Dnipro metro as it falls under Ministry of Transportation, not City Hall, landmarks names are landmark names.
Morever, we have to follow WP:NAMECHANGES, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, the COMMONNAME section of this page still applies, but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME.
So, lets have a quick look at Google News that generally includes WP:RS. "Dnipro" searches in all articles since 19/05/2016 gives us 37,400 results. "Dnipropetrovsk" 4770 results. Meaning that nearly 90 percent of articles about the city in post-renaming period, as per Wiki rules, use name Dnipro as opposed to Dnipropetrovsk. The latter actually in vast majority reffers to region, and not city, which has its own wiki page.
As a result, your argument is invalid, strongly on side of POV, and current situation is nonsensical and it is difficult to not feel politics behind the furious defense of the keepign the current name. While discussion last year rationale was to wait and see if WP:RS will pick up, now a year after renaming we can see crystal clear trend of reliable sources to name the city as "Dnipro". EllsworthSK (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep your POV rant to yourself and assume good faith on the part of all editors involved here. --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I want to oppose you just because of your arrogance and rudeness accusing me of POV. But the evidence does seem to indicate that English-language sources have switched the name of the city to Dnipro (although not the region) over the last year. --Taivo (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I havent been even reacting on you, but if you cannot even remain civil, which is basic requirement for any wiki editor, you should seriously think about WP:WIKIBREAK. Though its good to see that despite that you can acknowledge the shift in RS reports regarding the city based on evidence. I recommend opening another move proposal while notifying all those who participated in previous two discussions. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Before you get defensive, User:EllsworthSK, remember that it was you who started the personal attacks with, "As a result, your argument is invalid, strongly on side of POV, and current situation is nonsensical and it is difficult to not feel politics behind the furious defense of the keepign the current name." Remove the personal attack at the front end and the last half of your comment is perfectly appropriate. You have to be careful on this page. There is not a single, solitary editor here who is pro-Russian (which is what you are implying) or that supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those of us who have a personal POV are all on the same side--pro-Ukraine--so accusations of political bias are not only unwarranted, but offensive. But we don't edit Wikipedia through our personal bias. We follow the procedures and standards of Wikipedia. I suggest you do the same and assume that the rest of us do as well. --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are showing exactly what you are accusing me of and I will not play this game. You didnt once discuss the article, nor its proposed changes, only me. Think about WP:WIKIBREAK. And to add something actually contributing, I will tomorrow open discussion for move. If you have any other suggestions, please write it here. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You have clearly not read anything here from the past to accuse me of not discussing the article. And your continued self-righteous false indignation is inappropriate. It is not I who needs a WP:WIKIBREAK, but you. You seem to be of the opinion that if anyone disagrees with you, then they are motivated by a negative POV. If you are incapable of WP:AGF, then you need to do something else with your life besides editing Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, Im not interested in your attacks. If you are unable toto act civil, do a favor to others and at least bring it to my talkpage and don't pollute this discussion with this ramble. If you are interested in actual discussion regarding the article, I am willing to listen. But not to your attacks that above all tarnish your own reputation,such as it is. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You are the one who started the attacks, so perhaps you need to take a dose of your own medicine. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
We're done here. Hope you will be able to stay on topic in reopened discussion. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
And I hope that you will be able to get on topic without trying to impute political agendas to those with opposing points of view based on Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Your accusations are nonsense. No politics, I just say it is hard to change Wikipedia IF city itself DOES NOT use the name (or does not use it consistently). So airport will still be Dnipropetrovsk and it does not bother you? And Oblast will be Dnipropetrovsk? Is THAT a politics issue then too?!? If Dnipropetrovsk is so eww name for you, why only as a name of city but another uses are OK? THAT is hypocritical. BUT if it is true that English sources now use Dnipro, prove it and move can be done. But it should be common articles and sources, not news about renaming itself. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
It does not bother me. And as for proofs, Google News clicks I added are a proof. I will wirte more in reopened discussion later today and you are welcome to counter-argument with your sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
It does not bother you? So your only purpose is to change it on Wikipedia, and it does not matter if it is used in real life or not. Nice. Or you hope that once it is changed on Wikipedia, everybody will follow :) I can find 100 sources supporting change to, but I may find 1000 opposite sources. You may save us some work, be honest and present real usage in percents ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. Clear consensus for the name change, and nobody has objected to making it primary topic either. The disambiguation page will be moved to Dnipro (disambiguation).  — Amakuru (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


Dnipropetrovsk → Dnipro – We originally decided to wait several months before moving this article to see whether English usage would change. The evidence in the section above clearly demonstrates that English-language media are switching to "Dnipro". The media links from the preceding section on this Talk Page are from a number of English-speaking countries, on a wide variety of topics, in a wide range of contexts. In addition, reference works published since the official name change, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, are also switching. I opposed this move when the Rada first changed the name of the city, but I now support it because the trajectory of English usage is clear. Taivo (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If the change is accepted, there is a format issue. I suggest for the city article the name Dnipro (instead of the original Dnipro (city)) and for the rest of Dnipro (disambiguation). I think the city rank is much higher than other entities / places named Dnipro. Ales sandro (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot that there is a disambiguation page at Dnipro. I don't care one way or the other whether the city page is at Dnipro or Dnipro (city). --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "universal" change. That's simply an unreasonable demand. The Wikipedia policy is not for "universal change", but for "common English usage". It's clear that common English usage has changed over the last few months as has been demonstrated above. In this case, as we see that English usage is changing and has been demonstrated above, WP:NAMECHANGES applies. Common English usage does not, and never has, meant "universal". Demanding universal change would require "Saigon" and "Stalingrad" instead of "Ho Chi Minh City" and "Volgograd". --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be evidenced over a period greater than a 'few months'. This is not enough evidence to suggest a change like this is permanent. Common English usage – if you prefer – needs reflecting. In my opinion, this change would reflect selected change, ie in a small field, where the examples provided are ones which suit your cause. Please – if you desire support on a matter such as this – provide a stronger argument than 'It's clear that common English usage has changed over the last few months'. We need something a lot more definite than this. –Sb2001 talk page 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
From your contributions list, it seems clear that you are not familiar with Ukrainian naming issues and decommunization. This might be the very first time you've ventured onto this page. The majority of the articles on cities that had their names changed in the spring of 2016 were changed automatically since they are rarely mentioned in English-language materials. Dnipro is occasionally mentioned so the informal agreement from last year was to wait several months to see if the new name began to appear in English-language materials. That's what we did. It's obvious that the new name is being used in a wide variety of sources, so the agreement has been fulfilled. I've been here on this issue from the beginning and was one of the most vocal of the "wait and see" editors. We've waited, the name is changing. It's time to move the article. --Taivo (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
'Is changing'. Exactly. Not 'has changed'. Bring me a better argument, then let us see. And do not remove the [citation needed] template. –Sb2001 talk page 17:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Although, I do get your point. Let me think about it, then you may have my support. I will get back to you. –Sb2001 talk page 17:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dnipro/Archive_2&oldid=1076252573"